2011 VOLVO VNL Recall
Volvo has announced That they are recalling certain models of the 2010 through 2011 VNL Trucks. They stated that the adhesive used in the upper window in the bunk area to secure the glass may…
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]]
Bestsellers in Video in UK amazon_bestsellers("video","co.uk","BestsellersVideoUK"); [[ This is a content summary…
[...] (Majesty) wrote an interesting post today on Is This The Face Of Black Fashion?Here’s a quick excerptHard day at work? Bossman got you stressed? Need a stress-reliever? A quick laugh? We got you covered like none other, this is sure to have you rolling all over your cubicle…we warned… [[ This is a content summary only. … [...]
Daily Tanya: Today’s Lessons: Igeret HaTeshuva , Chapter 2 [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for…
Dave Springer says:
The evidence accepted by IPCC is 97% natural CO2, 3% anthropogenic, and 1.5% actual annual rise.
Not really. The 97% vs. 3% is apples-vs-oranges. It is mixing up fast exchanges (which go in both directions) of carbon between the subsystem consisting of the reservoirs of the atmosphere, biosphere, and ocean mixed layer with additions of carbon from outside of this subsystem. That is two quite different things.
There is no historical case for positive feedbacks.
Well, the scientists who actually study paleoclimate seem to feel otherwise:
There has never been a runaway greenhouse episode in earth’s history. The best evidence from the geologic column shows temperature maxes out about 6-8C warmer than today while CO2 has been at 10-15 times higher concentration. These periods lasted for millions of years without end and the earth was green from pole to pole.
Even given your numbers (which I think might be low for the temperatures … and maybe okay as estimates for the CO2, but with large error bars), we'd get 1.5-2.4 C rise per CO2 doubling using the expected logarithmic dependence of CO2 levels on temp.
In the meantime energy consumption goes hand in hand with economic growth. Economic growth is needed to fund research, development, and production of new and improved technologies of all kinds. As far as I’m concerned the CAGW crowd wants, unwittingly or otherwise, to kill the goose that’s been laying the golden eggs.
Just because the two tend to grow together does not mean that economic growth has to make so intensive use of (certain types of) energy sources. The energy intensity per unit of GDP has actually been declining significantly in the U.S. (and presumably most Western countries).
Surely, if it just happened that we had less fossil fuels than we do, you economic doomsayers would not be forecasting economic ruin because of such scarcity. You'd be talking about how wonderful human ingenuity and the market is at dealing with such things. What is being proposed is essentially to raise prices for carbon in a way that creates some artificial scarcity (except with even more flexibility, since sequestration is an option too). Why will human ingenuity and the market be crippled in the face of such action?
Consult a pro before opening a HELOC: [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other…
Irrelevant?! I think it was very creative. I don't know what other factors came into play in this case, but going by only what you've told us, it sounds like a high grade was deserved.
Photo: [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and…
#cuba #abajoFIDEL Woman wins $25,000,000 lotto after mistake:
[[ This is a content summary on… #saramartafonseca